Specifically when it became a part of Freemasonry.
I’ve read a fair number of Masonic histories that claim that the Master Mason Degree did not exist prior to 1717. That before that, Masonry consisted of two Degrees only, the Entered Apprentice and the Fellow Craft.
But of course Freemasonry would not be Freemasonry without the Third Degree, for it would be without its central allegory, and its primary lesson. It would also not be able to lay any claim to being the successor of the Mysteries, for without the Master Mason Degree it would lack any similarity to them.
The theory that Freemasonry previously existed as a two Degree system comes about from early ritual exposures and other individual writings.
Let’s chat about it. Do we think that it is correct that Freemasonry prior to 1717 was without our central allegory?
As we do on every Thursday, we will have a Live Open Thread today for those with a paid subscription to Emeth. I’ll open the Thread at 8:00 AM Pacific, and I will remain on it until 6:00 PM. We can discuss whatever is on your mind.
I personally find these Live Open Threads to be extremely thought provoking, I hope that you will consider joining in on the discussion today.
True. I think we do know that some early rituals had other and different basis' for their allegory. As mentioned by someone else, Noah seemed to be popular at one point.
I've often wondered about this same thing when it comes to the Ancient Mysteries. Why so many different stories all telling the same story? The only thing I can think of is perhaps cultural differences?
In reading the writings of those who argue that the MM Degree was created sometime after 1717, I've not found a consensus on dates. The most common seem to be somewhere between the mid 1720's and the mid 1730's.
"... the earliest reference to the conferral of a third degree was also said to have taken place in London in 1725, but not in a Lodge but in a musical society (‘Philo-Musicae et Architecturae Societas Appolloni’)."
The musical society was made of Freemasons ... and met within a lodge. It might be considered the first appendant body.
We cannot tell if it was performing a mock/practice degree... or if it sought the honor of putting the newly developed degree into action.
For those who think the 2nd degree was made into the third degree - - do we really mean to say that FC Masons would have to take the FC all over again in order to be considered MM's?
It would make sense that the 3rd Degree for a MM wasn't needed. Making a man a Master Mason was making him the Master of his Lodge.
If we are grown out of Operative Masonry, then you wouldn't have the need for very many Masters. That would be the title of those proven through their skill to be proficient with the various stone work required. They could run their own projects and ultimately make another man a Master. A FC would be what is considered a Journeyman in a trade craft today. Not an easy feat to accomplish through the years of apprenticeship and testing.
There was the Noahic legend prior to HA. Saw that in Pike's Estorika. But I don't recall the years and I'm at work so I can't look it up.
I too have read of the use of Noah in Masonic allegories of the past. It seems like that was well accepted, in some areas, in the earlier years of Freemasonry.
The operative guild in France (of which masons were a part) - - called the Campionage (variously spelled) - - had something called the Accolade for deceased brothers. It was a chain of a kind of points-of-friendship that culminated with an embrace of the deceased ... IN THE GRAVE!
The men behind the English GL could very well have decided to START a new ritual with a symbolic corpse.
If we transport ourselves to a temporary (and relatively brief) time in Scotland prior to creating a Scottish GL, we might imagine how "primitive Freemasonry" might have functioned:
[1] Lodges became mother lodges by chartering offspring lodges;
[2] the English Grand Lodge would have to decide WHICH (if any) Scottish blue lodge it would recognize;
[3] Just as Scottish blue lodges would be reciprocal to OTHER Scottish blue lodges.
[4] Even AFTER the Scottish Grand Lodge was created, there were still Scottish blue lodges who declined to join the Scottish GL;
[5] the really amazing historic turning point in Primitive Freemasonry was Scotland's Haughtfoot Lodge when it made non-operatives into officers of the lodge ... and these non-operatives were making MORE non-operative masons!
I think it is possible, and rather interesting, to speculate in the other direction as well. What if a day came that the Grand Lodge no longer existed. Certainly Freemasonry existed long before Grand Lodges were created to govern the Craft.
How would Lodges decide what other Lodges to recognize? I'm quite certain that they would, but how would they decide?
How would new Lodges be formed, by Mother Lodges as you mention. How would they decide who and where to Charter?
I firmly believe that Lodges could, as they did in the distant past, govern themselves without a Grand Lodge, but it would certainly be an interesting transition.
Indeed. The Moderns certainly claimed that it had no place in Craft Masonry for a long time, while the Ancients claimed that it did. Their eventual compromise is an interesting bit of wordplay.
In Washington the York Rite seems to be fading very quickly. I've sometimes wondered, what should we do if the day comes that the York Rite is no longer viable within this Jurisdiction. If that were to happen, do we begin conferring the Royal Arch Degree within our Blue Lodges?
The two degrees of Initiate and Fellow-of-the-Craft (Fellowcraft) seem to have been based on stone mason's classifications of Apprentice and Fellow or Journeyman. My studies have led me to believe that the second degree was inserted into the middle of the two classifications to create a further step in the journey. First Degree stayed the same. The former Second Degree became the new Third Degree, and a new degree was inserted between the two. I may be in error, but that's what I have gleaned from my readings.
Let's take a look at the traditions of the Apron. Without revealing any of the esoterica, the positions of the bib and apron seem out of order to me, and make no practical sense. I can see the position for the Entered Apprentice--it makes sense based on the description of the duties of the Apprentice. The Fellowcraft seems more suited to the description for the Master Mason. The Master Mason's description of the position of the apron is nonsensical. I can see that position--*maybe*--for a Fellow, but not for a Master. Why do we do it this way? "Because we've always done it this way." But, have we really?
Admittedly, much of my reading has been of "histories," based nearly equally on historical records and supposition based on those facts. Interesting certainly; entertaining, always. Informative, not always.
Well, except from watching various history channel specials and documentaries, in jolly old England, they don't do the nonsense of bibs and corners. Each degree features a different apron design. EA is plain, FC has two rosettes and the MM has three rosettes and tassles.
This relates to both Tig's comment, and Glenn's reply to it.
I think that not all GL's use the apron corner positions in the same order that we do here in Washington. I agree with Tig that the EA position makes some sense, but that the FC and MM positions seem backwards, and don't comport with the ritualistic explanations.
But I think that some other GL's perhaps most, reverse these two positions.
I was actually told once, years ago, but I don't remember by who, that our ritual is wrong if it is compared to those it evolved from. That an error somehow crept in, and that we just sort of accidentally formalized that error. Given how backwards the two positions seem, that makes good sense to me.
As Glenn points out, other GL's might not do it at all. Given that the aprons for each Degree change themselves.
And of course, in some Jurisdictions, including I believe our immediate neighboring Jurisdiction to the north, Lodges may well have their own unique ritual in place of a Standard Work used by all Lodges of a Jurisdiction.
Getting away from the apron, I think that your theory that the current FC Degree was the newly created Degree, and that the old FC Degree was actually the one containing our primary allegory, makes a lot of sense.
I think that under the theory you explain, Freemasonry prior to 1717 would have been Freemasonry.
If I abandon my own theory, I'm going to adopt yours. Because yours makes good logical sense.
Without 3rd Degree, it wouldn't be the culmination of all the candidate has learned up to that point. I believe boldly that if we have had only 2 Degrees, the importance and more especially the Obligation, would have given any Mason a "hole" in his Masonic path. We're they right up to 1717? That was for our Masonic forefathers to decide. The 3rd Degree is part of me and drives me to live up to all 3 Obligations.
David, aren't you begging the question? We can refer to a "hole" in a masonic path - - because we think the 3rd degree is quite normal.
But at the time, the Apprentice and Fellowcraft degrees were considered normal for blue lodges. It would appear the 3rd degree was formulated recently - - not because everyone was panting for a 3rd degree - - to further justify the existence of the Grand Lodge level of lodge governance.
>>"to further justify the existence of the Grand Lodge level of lodge governance."
Certainly there was extremely significant resistance to the creation of the first Grand Lodge. They would have needed to find ways to justify its existence. To be honest, I'm rather surprised that the enterprise ever really managed to get off the ground. I would have thought that the existing Lodges would have been able to crush the upstart GL.
There is though, a good bit of research that seems to point to wider political reasons for the GL's formation, having to do with the conflict between the Stuart and Hanoverian kings, so perhaps that played a strong role was well.
I agree with you about the importance of the MM Degree. Without it, I don't think that Freemasonry makes sense. I also don't believe that it would have grown and thrived as it did without it.
I think it has always been an integral part of the Craft, just given on a much more limited basis than it is now.
I can't know of course, for all who knew have been dead for centuries.
But I have my own theory.
My theory goes something like this:
Freemasonry always had the Three Craft Degrees. Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason.
That today, we give all new Masons (with very limited exceptions of course) all three Degrees. After that, we welcome them (assuming they want it) into leadership roles within our Lodges. That we started doing this sometime around the mid 1720's to mid 1730's.
That prior to then, we gave new Masons only the first two Degrees. We would Initiate them an EA, then Pass them and FC, then welcome them into active roles within the Lodges.
So, virtually all active Masons would have been Fellow Craft Masons.
But that we did give the Master Mason Degree, but that it was given only to the Master of the Lodge. The Master Mason was therefore not only a man who had been Initiated as such, but he was also a Master of men, a Master of Masons.
This is not much different than how things work, or should work now. A man becomes Master of his Lodge, and as a result of that, is given the Past Master's Degree. (I understand that in some areas the Past Master Degree is falling into disuse currently, but it is certainly an important part of Freemasonry.) Likewise, a man becomes Grand Master of his Grand Lodge, he is given the Past Grand Master's Degree. In Washington we actually do this immediately prior to the Installation of the GM, but in the old rituals I've read, the Installation begins, then the new GM is taken out to another place, given the Degree, then the Installation begins again. Lucky for us, we do it the other way now, for otherwise that Installation might just about go on forever!
In any event, that is what I think.
Prior to the mid 1720's to mid 1730's Lodges were composed of EA's and FC's, led by a MM, and that Master was the only man to have received the MM Degree.
This makes sense to me, because Freemasonry without the MM Degree makes no sense to me.
It also makes sense to me, because it explains why the Past Master Degree would have been developed, as a replacement for what used to happen after a Mason became Master of his Lodge.
In any event, this is just speculation, for what it is worth, but I think it makes sense.
Why would freemasonry invent a new story in 1717 if they could choose from any number of existing stories that have the same allegory?
A NEW story would have the advantage of avoiding existing conventions by existing lodges.
True. I think we do know that some early rituals had other and different basis' for their allegory. As mentioned by someone else, Noah seemed to be popular at one point.
I've often wondered about this same thing when it comes to the Ancient Mysteries. Why so many different stories all telling the same story? The only thing I can think of is perhaps cultural differences?
Or the telephone effect
True. I hadn't considered that.
I have read more than once about the 3rd degree being intended as a degree performed by the "Premiere" grand lodge of Lindon.
But I have not found much on EXACTLY WHEN the GL agreed to let individual lodges perform the 3rd degree.
In reading the writings of those who argue that the MM Degree was created sometime after 1717, I've not found a consensus on dates. The most common seem to be somewhere between the mid 1720's and the mid 1730's.
We can be a little more precise:
"... the earliest reference to the conferral of a third degree was also said to have taken place in London in 1725, but not in a Lodge but in a musical society (‘Philo-Musicae et Architecturae Societas Appolloni’)."
The musical society was made of Freemasons ... and met within a lodge. It might be considered the first appendant body.
We cannot tell if it was performing a mock/practice degree... or if it sought the honor of putting the newly developed degree into action.
For those who think the 2nd degree was made into the third degree - - do we really mean to say that FC Masons would have to take the FC all over again in order to be considered MM's?
It would make sense that the 3rd Degree for a MM wasn't needed. Making a man a Master Mason was making him the Master of his Lodge.
If we are grown out of Operative Masonry, then you wouldn't have the need for very many Masters. That would be the title of those proven through their skill to be proficient with the various stone work required. They could run their own projects and ultimately make another man a Master. A FC would be what is considered a Journeyman in a trade craft today. Not an easy feat to accomplish through the years of apprenticeship and testing.
There was the Noahic legend prior to HA. Saw that in Pike's Estorika. But I don't recall the years and I'm at work so I can't look it up.
I too have read of the use of Noah in Masonic allegories of the past. It seems like that was well accepted, in some areas, in the earlier years of Freemasonry.
The operative guild in France (of which masons were a part) - - called the Campionage (variously spelled) - - had something called the Accolade for deceased brothers. It was a chain of a kind of points-of-friendship that culminated with an embrace of the deceased ... IN THE GRAVE!
The men behind the English GL could very well have decided to START a new ritual with a symbolic corpse.
Does anyone know what month/year the Premier GL let blue lodges give the 3rd degree?
I honestly haven't given it much thought, but I can't imagine speculative masonry without it. Then you have to wonder about the Royal Arch degree.
If we transport ourselves to a temporary (and relatively brief) time in Scotland prior to creating a Scottish GL, we might imagine how "primitive Freemasonry" might have functioned:
[1] Lodges became mother lodges by chartering offspring lodges;
[2] the English Grand Lodge would have to decide WHICH (if any) Scottish blue lodge it would recognize;
[3] Just as Scottish blue lodges would be reciprocal to OTHER Scottish blue lodges.
[4] Even AFTER the Scottish Grand Lodge was created, there were still Scottish blue lodges who declined to join the Scottish GL;
[5] the really amazing historic turning point in Primitive Freemasonry was Scotland's Haughtfoot Lodge when it made non-operatives into officers of the lodge ... and these non-operatives were making MORE non-operative masons!
I think it is possible, and rather interesting, to speculate in the other direction as well. What if a day came that the Grand Lodge no longer existed. Certainly Freemasonry existed long before Grand Lodges were created to govern the Craft.
How would Lodges decide what other Lodges to recognize? I'm quite certain that they would, but how would they decide?
How would new Lodges be formed, by Mother Lodges as you mention. How would they decide who and where to Charter?
I firmly believe that Lodges could, as they did in the distant past, govern themselves without a Grand Lodge, but it would certainly be an interesting transition.
Indeed. The Moderns certainly claimed that it had no place in Craft Masonry for a long time, while the Ancients claimed that it did. Their eventual compromise is an interesting bit of wordplay.
In Washington the York Rite seems to be fading very quickly. I've sometimes wondered, what should we do if the day comes that the York Rite is no longer viable within this Jurisdiction. If that were to happen, do we begin conferring the Royal Arch Degree within our Blue Lodges?
The two degrees of Initiate and Fellow-of-the-Craft (Fellowcraft) seem to have been based on stone mason's classifications of Apprentice and Fellow or Journeyman. My studies have led me to believe that the second degree was inserted into the middle of the two classifications to create a further step in the journey. First Degree stayed the same. The former Second Degree became the new Third Degree, and a new degree was inserted between the two. I may be in error, but that's what I have gleaned from my readings.
Let's take a look at the traditions of the Apron. Without revealing any of the esoterica, the positions of the bib and apron seem out of order to me, and make no practical sense. I can see the position for the Entered Apprentice--it makes sense based on the description of the duties of the Apprentice. The Fellowcraft seems more suited to the description for the Master Mason. The Master Mason's description of the position of the apron is nonsensical. I can see that position--*maybe*--for a Fellow, but not for a Master. Why do we do it this way? "Because we've always done it this way." But, have we really?
Admittedly, much of my reading has been of "histories," based nearly equally on historical records and supposition based on those facts. Interesting certainly; entertaining, always. Informative, not always.
Well, except from watching various history channel specials and documentaries, in jolly old England, they don't do the nonsense of bibs and corners. Each degree features a different apron design. EA is plain, FC has two rosettes and the MM has three rosettes and tassles.
This relates to both Tig's comment, and Glenn's reply to it.
I think that not all GL's use the apron corner positions in the same order that we do here in Washington. I agree with Tig that the EA position makes some sense, but that the FC and MM positions seem backwards, and don't comport with the ritualistic explanations.
But I think that some other GL's perhaps most, reverse these two positions.
I was actually told once, years ago, but I don't remember by who, that our ritual is wrong if it is compared to those it evolved from. That an error somehow crept in, and that we just sort of accidentally formalized that error. Given how backwards the two positions seem, that makes good sense to me.
As Glenn points out, other GL's might not do it at all. Given that the aprons for each Degree change themselves.
And of course, in some Jurisdictions, including I believe our immediate neighboring Jurisdiction to the north, Lodges may well have their own unique ritual in place of a Standard Work used by all Lodges of a Jurisdiction.
Getting away from the apron, I think that your theory that the current FC Degree was the newly created Degree, and that the old FC Degree was actually the one containing our primary allegory, makes a lot of sense.
I think that under the theory you explain, Freemasonry prior to 1717 would have been Freemasonry.
If I abandon my own theory, I'm going to adopt yours. Because yours makes good logical sense.
Without 3rd Degree, it wouldn't be the culmination of all the candidate has learned up to that point. I believe boldly that if we have had only 2 Degrees, the importance and more especially the Obligation, would have given any Mason a "hole" in his Masonic path. We're they right up to 1717? That was for our Masonic forefathers to decide. The 3rd Degree is part of me and drives me to live up to all 3 Obligations.
David, aren't you begging the question? We can refer to a "hole" in a masonic path - - because we think the 3rd degree is quite normal.
But at the time, the Apprentice and Fellowcraft degrees were considered normal for blue lodges. It would appear the 3rd degree was formulated recently - - not because everyone was panting for a 3rd degree - - to further justify the existence of the Grand Lodge level of lodge governance.
>>"to further justify the existence of the Grand Lodge level of lodge governance."
Certainly there was extremely significant resistance to the creation of the first Grand Lodge. They would have needed to find ways to justify its existence. To be honest, I'm rather surprised that the enterprise ever really managed to get off the ground. I would have thought that the existing Lodges would have been able to crush the upstart GL.
There is though, a good bit of research that seems to point to wider political reasons for the GL's formation, having to do with the conflict between the Stuart and Hanoverian kings, so perhaps that played a strong role was well.
I agree with you about the importance of the MM Degree. Without it, I don't think that Freemasonry makes sense. I also don't believe that it would have grown and thrived as it did without it.
I think it has always been an integral part of the Craft, just given on a much more limited basis than it is now.
I can't know of course, for all who knew have been dead for centuries.
But I have my own theory.
My theory goes something like this:
Freemasonry always had the Three Craft Degrees. Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason.
That today, we give all new Masons (with very limited exceptions of course) all three Degrees. After that, we welcome them (assuming they want it) into leadership roles within our Lodges. That we started doing this sometime around the mid 1720's to mid 1730's.
That prior to then, we gave new Masons only the first two Degrees. We would Initiate them an EA, then Pass them and FC, then welcome them into active roles within the Lodges.
So, virtually all active Masons would have been Fellow Craft Masons.
But that we did give the Master Mason Degree, but that it was given only to the Master of the Lodge. The Master Mason was therefore not only a man who had been Initiated as such, but he was also a Master of men, a Master of Masons.
This is not much different than how things work, or should work now. A man becomes Master of his Lodge, and as a result of that, is given the Past Master's Degree. (I understand that in some areas the Past Master Degree is falling into disuse currently, but it is certainly an important part of Freemasonry.) Likewise, a man becomes Grand Master of his Grand Lodge, he is given the Past Grand Master's Degree. In Washington we actually do this immediately prior to the Installation of the GM, but in the old rituals I've read, the Installation begins, then the new GM is taken out to another place, given the Degree, then the Installation begins again. Lucky for us, we do it the other way now, for otherwise that Installation might just about go on forever!
In any event, that is what I think.
Prior to the mid 1720's to mid 1730's Lodges were composed of EA's and FC's, led by a MM, and that Master was the only man to have received the MM Degree.
This makes sense to me, because Freemasonry without the MM Degree makes no sense to me.
It also makes sense to me, because it explains why the Past Master Degree would have been developed, as a replacement for what used to happen after a Mason became Master of his Lodge.
In any event, this is just speculation, for what it is worth, but I think it makes sense.